Welcome, everyone. We'll just pause for a moment as participants make their way in from the lobby. Welcome to the Trilogy Metals webinar to discuss the results of the Arctic 2023 feasibility study. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode, and the meeting is being recorded. After the presentation, management will take questions. If you wish to submit a question, please click the Q&A icon on the left-hand side of the screen, and you'll see a panel open, providing the option to write a question. I would now like to turn the meeting over to Tony Giardini, President and CEO of Trilogy. Please go ahead.
Thank you very much, Lynn. I'd like to welcome all the participants to the call. As was discussed, we'll be discussing our 2023 Arctic feasibility study results, and we'll give you a bit more color on how this study was prepared and the results of the good work that's been done over the last year or so. A copy of this presentation will be available on our website, trilogymetals.com. As a reminder, Trilogy is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange and New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol TMQ. What we're gonna do is we're gonna have a brief presentation on the results of the feasibility study, followed by a question and answer section. Next slide, Lynn.
I'd like to draw your attention to our disclosure on forward-looking statements regarding this presentation and our conference call. Next slide. You can just go on to the next one. Thanks, Lynn. Today's presenters will be myself, Tony Giardini, President, CEO. Elaine Sanders, who's our Chief Financial Officer. Richard Gosse, VP Operations. Bob Jacko, who's described here as engineering, but Bob was our former VP Operations and has been involved with the project from the get-go and was a key part of the feasibility study in 2020 in terms of shepherding that process. Each of them will be speaking to the study that we'll be discussing today. Next slide.
Before we get started on the results of the feasibility study, just wanna talk a little bit about copper and, you know, where copper fits in in terms of a transition to a clean energy. Obviously, there's been lots of discussion about the role that copper is gonna play moving forward. It's clear that the demand fundamentals are strong in terms of just how much more copper is gonna be needed as we move to either electric vehicles or additional generation and materials that are gonna be needed to improve infrastructure in the grid. Our view is that where the challenge really lies is on the supply side. You know, what we're seeing is that mines are getting older.
The average size, or average age of the top 10 global copper mines is over 90 years old right now. They're also getting deeper. They're mining lower grades. The costs have been increasing, and there's certainly ESG and political issues regarding water resources and increased taxation royalties that are impacting the development of new projects going forward. We know that the cost to develop mines and operate them are also increasing, partly due to inflationary demands, partly just due to supply chain issues. They just reflect the general dearth of personnel to carry out these very large projects. We believe that as things move forward, prices will need to increase to incentivize new developments and additional exploration.
As we talk about the Arctic project and a little bit more about Bornite, we'll talk about how they fit in terms of potential timelines coming into production. I think they fit quite well into where this potential gap exists between primary demand and the supply shortfall that is evident on this slide. Next slide, please. For those of you who aren't that familiar with the Trilogy story, it really revolves around the Ambler Mining District. This was a district that was in the 1950s by Kennecott Mining and has been explored since that time. Although there was probably a 20-year period where there was no exploration that was really carried out in the district. However, it was only in 2011 that the district was consolidated by Trilogy Metals through an agreement with NANA.
NANA is an Alaska Native Regional Corporation, which represents more than 14,000 shareholders in the district. The district has a total land package of 181,000 hectares, mostly on state and NANA lands. Our development plans for the district are modeled in part on the Red Dog mine, which was built by Teck and where NANA holds a significant MPI. We're in a great jurisdiction. We've got a strong native partner in terms of NANA participating either financially in the project through an MPI or directly through an ownership interest if they take that option. The residents in the district are very familiar with mining. They benefited from mining in the district through the Red Dog mine.
There's a strong understanding of how a development such as Arctic will have an impact going forward. I think the other thing that we'll get into a little bit more as we speak to not just the results, but the upside associated in the district. We have a large land package. We have high grade resources at Arctic, but we also have an advanced exploration project in Bornite, which we'll talk a little bit more about. Next slide, please. We're updating this study, and it's really building on the work that had been performed by Trilogy in 2020 when we released a NI 43-101 feasibility study on the Arctic project. Since 2020, we formed a JV called Ambler Metals, which is jointly owned by Trilogy and South32.
Over the last couple of years, Ambler Metals has been completing additional study and engineering work and updating costs to the end of 2022. What this study represents is effectively taking the updated materials and work that's being performed by Ambler Metals and updating our feasibility study to comply with U.S. regulatory requirements, specifically S-K 1300. As we get into the discussion, Bob will highlight the major changes in the scope and the proposed mine design. We'll also highlight the inflationary and supply changes that have impacted both the capital costs and operating costs of the project going forward. Next slide, please. In terms of the engineering firms that assisted us in preparing the study, a number of them have been involved with this project for a number of iterations of study work that have been done.
Cinco, Wood, and SRK are all very familiar with this project, having been involved with the previous feasibility study and in some cases, the PFS prior to that have been carried out on, the Arctic project. We have consistent independent consultants that have been involved with the project in terms of having a deep understanding of, the opportunities that exist in the Ambler Mining District. Brown and Caldwell are new to the project, and they were brought in specifically to focus on water treatment, considerations, which Bob will highlight in more details. Next slide, please. At this point, I'll turn the presentation over to Richard Gosse, who will discuss the Arctic and Bornite mineral resources. Richard, over to you.
Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Tony. The 2023 mineral resource estimate is done by Wood. Metal prices, recoveries, operating and processing costs, and the 0.5% copper equivalent cut-off grade used in this resource estimate are all the same as those that were used in the 2020 resource estimate. The mineral resources shown here are inclusive of the mineral reserves. There are small changes to tonnages and grades compared to the 2020 resource estimate, mostly because the open pit has been redesigned. The new pit removes the talc structure in the footwall of the deposit to increase stability in the pit wall. Bob will talk about this a bit next. However, in addition to that talc structure, that new pit also includes resources that were not part of the last resource estimate.
As shown in footnote 4, approximately 570,000 tons were added to the indicated category, and then 320,000 tons were added to the inferred category. The new resource estimate is based on 171 drill holes, totaling about 35,000 meters, 19 more holes than were used in the 2020 resource estimate. These additional holes include all the holes which were drilled in 2019, and half the holes drilled in 2021, for which assays had been received by that cutoff date, November 31st. This excludes the remaining holes from 2021 and all 47 holes which were drilled in 2022. We go to the next slide, please. Briefly on reserves then.
The indicated mineral resources were converted to probable mineral reserves by Wood. Dilution is assumed to be 30%-40%. The NSR cutoff used is $38.80 per ton. Due to the design change to the pit, reserves have increased by 7.5% to 43 million tons compared to the 2020 reserve statement, thus adding a year to the life of the mine. The grades drop marginally, while contained copper and zinc increases marginally. Bob is next, and he will discuss the impact on the waste and strip ratio.
Thanks, Richard. The next three slides, we're gonna look at various site plans. The first one that you see up here is the complete site plan. The only thing that's excluded from this drawing is the camp, which is to the east of this drawing and also the airstrip. The rest of the facilities are here from the tailings facility, the waste rock facility, and the plant facility, et cetera.
The stars that you're seeing are highlighting the changes between the 2020 FS and the 2023 FS. The star at the top is the open pit. As Richard mentioned, you'll hear talk a lot. It shows you the new size of the pit, and it's really dependent on the conclusions and geotech work. I'll talk a little bit more on that in a couple of slides, but you'll see a larger pit facility footprint. The other location, the star down below, sort of the middle of the drawing is the waste rock contact pond, and that has doubled in size. It provides a lot more flexibility during operations and closure. All of these that we're going through here are improvements that have been added through the project review and trade-off studies.
Then the last star on the right-hand side is the process water pond. Originally, the mill was moving water between the tailings facility and down to the process plant. To optimize the plant and minimize water transfer, a process water pond was added just below the mill facility. It results in less water transfer and less energy to move the water around. On the next slide, we're gonna zoom in a bit and we'll process. The one star that you're seeing there is for the tailings thickener and in tandem with the process water pond. Take as much water out as possible, move it over to the process water pond and the thickened tailings up to the tailings facility.
The next slide is another zoom in on the waste rock contact pond. That's about twice the original size. It's about 700,000 cubic meters versus about 225,000-350,000 cubic meters. This is added for both the operations and closure. The other red star you're seeing in there is the topsoil. You're gonna see more topsoil piles that are around the site, and their location is fairly strategic. There was also an avalanche study that was done by Ambler that discussed various options with regards to avalanches and protection. A lot of these topsoils are strategic protection barriers in the case of an avalanche. You'll see a lot more topsoil piles, and they've moved around if you compare the 2023 drawings with the 2020 drawings.
That gets you orientated, gets you an idea of where the changes are. As you can see, most of it is fairly similar. On the next slide, we're gonna just go through and discuss some of the optimizations and positive changes from an ESG perspective. In a number of cases, it increased capital or operating costs to make these changes and improvements. The first one is water treatment. It's improved the overall treatment in both operations and closures, and I'll talk a bit about that a little bit more when you see some of the capital changes. There's also a liner that's been placed over the waste rock. Originally, it was a soil liner and part of the trip facility, and it reduces the water infiltration, optimizes and improves the water treatment.
It's got a lot of downstream positive effects and which will happen during operations and closure. The last one we've talked a bit about here as well is the tailings thickener and process water pond. Again, the idea is to use less energy, less fuel consumption, move less water around. Also helps us out quite a bit in closure that we got a much more compact site and facility during closure as well. The next slide you're gonna see here is really just to give you a bit of an idea, the representation of the talc. There's been quite a bit of geotechnical work done even during RFS and the 2020 FS and the follow-up FS work that we're talking about now.
SRK conducted a lot of that work and analysis and evaluations, and it just confirms the extent of the talc, the drilling, and you can see that in the white. The yellow pit outline that you see is from 2020, and the red pit outline that you see from 2023. This is the north-south section looking east, with section two on in that little inset on the plan view of the pit. It gives overall better pit stability. As you can see, it in the north and northeast, there's quite a difference between pit wall in 2020 and the ultimate pit wall in 2023. It just gives you a bit of a visual with what's happened with the talc and the impact.
The next slide, I'm not gonna go through each line item here, but the second column is the 2020 FS and the third column is the 2023 FS. The first grouping of numbers, you can see there's a 14% increase in total tons mined, and 3.2 million tons is accounted for in the increased tons to the mill. The second line item or third line item there is the waste tons, and that's gone up by about 45 million tons. The vast majority of that is all associated with that talc that we were looking at on the previous slide.
As a result of the additional tons we're moving, we now have a 13-year mine life versus a 12-year mine life, and there's a strip ratio that's gone from 6.87 to 7.36. The next grouping, I'll talk about recoveries. You can see a lot of work that was done was focused on copper production and recovery. The end result of the metallurgical work, we've got improved copper recovery, which results in concentrate and feeds down to an increase in copper metal pounds that are recoverable and payable. Those are all positives. The one in there you'll notice is the lead recovery. The lead recovery is down. There will be further optimization done in future test work.
One of the problems when you're doing metallurgical work and the lead numbers percentages are small compared to copper, that it makes it a little more difficult to optimize it. Further work will be done to optimize that lead recovery that we're gonna see in subsequent metallurgical work. The improvements on the copper are significant from recovery through to the payable. The next slide is capital costs. As you can see, capital is up, sustaining capital is similar, and reclamation and closure costs are up. The capital costs we've been mentioning in earlier slides, the additional water treatment design increases cost $30 million, the liner over the waste rock containment $55 million, and the tailings thickener and process pond is $15 million.
Camps went up by $30 million, which was a significant increase from what we'd seen in 2020. A lot of the increases you're seeing is your standard inflation and supply costs significantly impacting. Fuel costs. We're somewhat unique that it seems that fuel touches every part of our property in all aspects, all coming to site during construction, during operations, and all leaving site, all the power costs, all the, you know, the fuel gets hit twice. You're trucking that fuel in, it's expensive, and then you're supplying all the power to the site. It also even impacts the explosive costs. As you know, ANFO is a combination of fuel oil and ammonium nitrate, so we get hit there again with fuel costs.
The mine closure information impact from water treatment. We discussed the water treatment, so there's quite of additional costs associated with the water treatment and also the fuel moving supplies in and out over the closure period. On the next slide, these are the operating costs. The offsite operating costs, the majority of that is all associated with transportation, moving the materials in and off site. The on-site operating costs, mining's seen an increase. You've got a higher strip ratio or waste more fuel 'cause that's per ton milled, so we're seeing an increase there. Processing costs, majority of that is power cost and in some increases in reagents. G&A is very similar. Surface costs have gone up by 73%.
Although it's a small number, the percentage is high, and that's really associated with fuel and diesel for dust control has gone through the roof, and we're picking it up in the surface costs as well. The total operating costs have gone from $50.5 to $59.83 per ton milled. That covers off my slide. I'll pass it to Elaine. Thank you.
Thanks, Bob. I'm gonna just touch a little bit on the road toll and maintenance costs here before we move on to the next slide. The working assumption for the road is that AIDEA, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, would construct and finance a road that connects the Ambler Mining District to the rest of Alaska's existing infrastructure. AIDEA would charge a toll to multiple users of the road, which the Ambler Mine would be one of the users. This structure is similar to AIDEA's DeLong Mountain Transportation System, which was built in the 1980s, which is commonly known as the Red Dog Mine road and port facility. The amount paid for tolls will be affected by the cost of the road and its financing structure. Ultimately, the toll will be negotiated between the mine and AIDEA.
For our study here, what we did was we took the road tolls that we had in the study from 2020, and we escalated those road tolls all the way to Q4 of 2022. The reduction that you're seeing here on the slide that compares 2020 to 2023 is that we've assumed that we've already spent $35 million on pre-development funding. There was an agreement that Ambler Metals has with AIDEA that we would pre-fund work on the road, and that we would take those pre-funding dollars as almost like a prepaid toll, so deductions once the mine is in operations. That money is being deducted off the first two years of operations in our cash flows, and thus you see a reduction overall. Okay, let's move on to the financial results.
First few rows here are the metal prices that we've assumed, long-term metal prices. Biggest change is in copper and precious metals. Base case, $3.65 copper, $1 lead, $1.15 zinc, $16.50 gold, and $21 silver. That kicks out a pre-tax NPV at an 8% discount rate of $1.5 billion, which is similar to what we had back in 2020. The cost impacts due to inflation is really hitting the next line there. That's highlighted in yellow. It's our cash costs net of byproduct credits. To produce a pound of copper back in our 2020 study was $0.32 per pound of copper payable, and now it's gone up to $0.72. It looks like it's gone up a lot, but it's still...
This mine is producing strong cash flows at current copper prices and at long-term copper prices. I mean, it's still a very robust mine. The capital intensity ratio has increased, but when you look at just over $10,600 per ton of copper equivalent produced per year, I believe that's still on the relative low end, when you compare that across the copper projects that are being in development today or have been constructed. Pre-tax IRR at 25.8%, post-tax at 22.8%, still very strong IRRs. Payback hovering around 3 years pre- and post-tax. The tax regime in the U.S. and, of course, in Alaska, has not changed a lot since our study from 2020. The model does not take into account any of the owner's tax basis for future tax deductibility.
Okay, the next slide shows our financial results at spot prices. The first column in blue are the results from our 2020 study. The column in the middle is our current study. At the far right in red are spot prices. Looking at copper around $4.02, lead at $0.95, zinc at $1.39, gold at $1,853, and silver at $22 kicks out a pre-tax NPV of $2.1 billion. Cash costs go down to $0.40, and a pre-tax IRR of 31.5%. The increases in copper and zinc prices are quite impactful to the Arctic project. For every 5-cent change in copper, there is a $46 million impact to the NPV. For every 5-cent change in the zinc price, there's a $52 million impact to the NPVs.
There's a lot of upside here at higher commodity prices. Maybe with that, I'll turn the presentation back to Tony.
Thanks, Elaine. Thanks, Bob and Richard. Just a few slides just to round things up before we open things up for questions. This is, you know, as Elaine was speaking to, the polymetallic nature of the Arctic deposit, this is a way of looking at, you know, what the Arctic revenue per ton is of probable reserves. You can see that, you know, with obviously the recent increases in, not just copper, but, zinc and gold prices, that we're getting back up to the highs. We're somewhere around $320 a ton right now, which is actually a very good figure. It just shows you how this has looked over time. Certainly trending in the right direction. Next slide.
We've had BMO and RBC prepare a couple slides for us, which I think really just are there to give you a bit of comparison to some of the other projects out there. It's not really to speak to those projects, but just to highlight how Trilogy compares to those other projects. While Arctic and to some extent, Bornite, might not be the largest deposits on this slide, you can tell by the grades whether they're the reserve grade or inferred resource grade at Arctic 5.4, 3.72, that these projects are in their own separate league relative to these other projects that are out there.
Even if you look at Bornite and the size and scale of Bornite, which is reasonable, but the fact that it's at an average grade of roughly 1.5%, really puts us in a very strong position to look at how ultimately Bornite can be developed longer term. That's something that we're very focused on in terms of some of the planned work that we have. For the current year, is looking at a Bornite study to see some of the options that could exist, particularly with the high grade underground resource of roughly 33 million tons at 3.5%. Next slide, Elaine. Lastly, this is a slide that RBC has prepared and updated based on the updated resources and or the updated results of the FS.
What this is a profitability index that shows after-tax IRR and after-tax NPV. The higher up you are, the better, the further right you are, the better, the bigger the circle you are, the better. What this includes in some of the shaded circles is projects that have been acquired. The black shaded circles are projects that have been acquired by others. You can see where Arctic sort of sits relative to the number of the other projects. It's in very good company where it sits, and it's got, as I said, a high profitability index with a corresponding high IRR. As Elaine pointed out, it's very torqued to copper and zinc prices, and it does move up considerably, as she pointed out.
If we were looking at this on a spot basis, we'd be way over on the right side of that slide at over 30%. Next slide, Elaine. At this point, I'm going to turn the call back to the operator, and the operator will remind everyone on how best to ask questions. We'll do our best to respond to your questions as best we can. I look forward to answering any questions. Operator, I turn it over to you.
Thank you. Once again, if you wish to submit a question, please click on the Q&A icon on the left-hand side of the screen. You will see a panel open providing the option to write a question. I'd now like to hand the meeting over to Elaine Sanders, who will take us through questions submitted in writing. Elaine?
Thanks, operator. Tony, I have a question for you, from a shareholder about jobs. What are the number of jobs that may be created from, the mine during operations and construction?
Yeah, that's a great question, and it's obviously very important. I mean, we talk about the NANA relationship and NANA shareholders. Shareholders are the residents of the community, and they're very keen on understanding what the employment opportunities are going to be in the district, as are the interior villages that are gonna be close to the road. When we look at the construction of just the mine, we're not talking about the road, we're looking at a total of roughly 975 jobs, so close to 1,000 jobs during the construction period. That's based on a camp capacity of about 650, and it's with a rotation of two weeks on and one week off.
When we get to the operations side, we're in and around 525 jobs, based on close to 400 direct hire positions, 130 contract positions, which include contract trucking, catering, and blasting, with the same rotation, two weeks on, one week off, with three crews, two on-site for 12-hour shifts. There's sizable job opportunities that come out of this project and, you know, that's without factoring in the jobs that would obviously be created through the development of the road, that would be built into the district.
Thanks, Tony. I've got another question here from one of our analysts. What are we thinking about with regards to Arctic and the timing of taking it into the formal NEPA process?
Yeah. We've been ready to start that process for a while now, and I would say that unfortunately, with the remand associated with the road and just, you know, let's talk about the road for a second here. The road had been permitted. A JROD had been issued in 2020. Five years of study work had been done on the road before the JROD was issued by the BLM DOI. Unfortunately, in 2022, the DOI came back and BLM came back and basically said that they felt there were deficiencies that needed to be addressed, notwithstanding that process had already taken five years. Those deficiencies were specifically related to subsistence and cultural heritage considerations. We had planned to actually start the NEPA process last year, in 2022.
with the remand of a road, that's been delayed. We're in the process of really planning out the schedule, and we see some activity starting later this spring with a formal submission sometime later this year, likely in the third quarter.
Thanks, Tony. Got another question from a shareholder. For the Bornite project, you know, what are the plans from the joint venture's perspective on the Bornite project for this year?
What's interesting about the Bornite project is, you know, I mentioned a bit of a history of the Ambler Mining District 2011 agreement with NANA. The other big agreement was with our partner, South32. South32 initially came into this project sometime around 2017, and they entered into an agreement where they had an option to effectively take 50% interest in the Ambler Mining District. To get that option, they committed to spend $30 million on exploration. Then the further commitment was if they exercise the option, they would fund $145 million into the JV, and which they did do at the beginning of 2020.
What's interesting about that $30 million that was spent on exploration was that it was all spent on Bornite. The focus when South32 came into this project was actually the Bornite project. It wasn't Arctic. We're spending a lot of time talking about a project that has a current market pre-tax NPV of roughly $2 billion, but we haven't said a single thing about a project which was the basis for our partner coming in and investing $145 million into the project itself, plus $30 million in exploration. Bornite is an interesting project.
It's sizable, it's got grade, and what we're really looking at is how Bornite could fit longer term, either on a standalone basis, but also is there an opportunity at looking at the high grade part of the deposit, the underground deposit. What could be the underground deposit of roughly 33-35 million tons at 3.5%. Could that be processed through the Arctic mill if we're in a situation where we don't find additional material in and around the Ambler Mining District VMS material. Right now we're looking at a 14-year mine life. We think there's lots of opportunities to extend that mine life in and around Arctic, but we also want to see, as a backstop, how the underground could sort of fit into that.
Some of the study work that we're planning to do this year is to really focus on that and put a fresh set of eyes on the Bornite deposit. You know, having a deposit that has the size and scale and differentiating it from many of the other deposit, the grade is really puts us in a very strong position. You know, we don't think people really are attributing any value to Bornite. In fact, you know, if you look at the value proposition of the stock right now, stock's got a market cap of roughly $86 million based on today's share price. There's about $80 million in the JV, of which 40% is ours.
Our enterprise value is roughly $40 million for half of an interest in a project that has a current market or a current NPV of pre-tax of $2 billion, plus Bornite, which has no value attributed to it whatsoever. Hopefully that helps as far as what we're thinking about Bornite.
Thanks, Tony. I've got another question from an analyst related to closure and reclamation. Looks like the CapEx has increased over $200 million. Obviously part of that's from the liner on the waste rock containment. But is the other part of the CapEx increase related to the water treatment facility and treating of water? Can you comment?
It is. That was brought forward, and it's the right thing to do from an environmental perspective. You know, in the past, when we looked at it from the previous iterations, there was a selenium treatment plant. What we're looking at now is a water treatment plant that starts operations at the beginning. I think you know, the big consideration, of course, is that with the 14-year mine life, the closure costs kick in after year 14. We think this mine and the district has a lot more potential than 14 years. We think those costs will ultimately be deferred simply because the mine will continue to operate. We won't be in a situation where there'll actually be those closure costs incurred within that 14-year time period.
Yes, that is the bulk of the impact, and that's why it's changed so significantly. As we said, it's the right thing to do. As Bob highlighted, the specific changes that were made with respect to tailings management and water treatment are very environmental ESG-focused changes that were purposely factored in and should play well as we go through the NEPA permitting process.
Thanks, Tony. We talked a little bit about the road, remand already. There's a question related to your thoughts on the atmosphere in Washington, and can you comment on the support we're getting from the Alaska delegation?
Yeah. You know, there's a bit of an echo there. I don't know if someone has their line on. Basically, the Alaska delegation has been very supportive of the project. When I talk about the Alaska delegation, I talk about the two senators from the state of Alaska, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, and Mary Peltola, who's the recently elected representative in the House of Representatives. All parties are very supportive of this project. The Alaska delegation has been pushing very hard to see the process expedited in terms of the work that BLM is carrying on with respect to the supplemental EIS.
We believe that Senators Murkowski and Sullivan are pushing very hard, but we also believe that Congresswoman Peltola, being a Democrat and having the ear of the party, will be in a very good position to advocate on behalf of the project. The fact that we have NANA as a partner and we have resolutions from all of the communities in and around where the Ambler Mining District is located underscores the strong native support that we have for our project. I think the key that it's very important that be stressed as we advocate on behalf of a project.
I think the other thing that's important is. When we talk about copper demand at the beginning and critical supply and, you know, there's the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed, and there's obviously going to be a need for the domestic supply of metals. This project provides domestic supplies of copper, zinc. I remind everyone that there's also 188 million pounds of cobalt at Bornite, which we haven't figured out a way to economically recover yet, but it's there, and that's obviously a critical metal that's gonna be important going forward. We believe that because of the domestic nature of this project, and it fits very well within having a domestic supply of critical metals.
Although copper is not designated a critical metal right now. We think that those are very important considerations that will hopefully be addressed by Washington as we move through the next steps of moving this project forward.
Thanks, Tony. I think we're kinda running out of time here, Tony, maybe I can pass it back to you for some closing remarks.
Yeah. Just firstly, I wanna thank everyone that's been involved with the feasibility study, all of our technical advisors for all of the hard work that they've done, our team at Ambler Metals JV, and our partners at South32 and NANA. We really appreciate all of the commitment and hard work that's gone into getting the study done. As I mentioned, a copy of this presentation is on our website at trilogymetals.com. The study will also be posted on the website. It will also be filed in the U.S. and Canada at the appropriate time, but I encourage you to come to the website. You'll probably get a more reader-friendly version of the study for those of you that are interested in looking at the details.
There's more information on the company available on the website. If there are any questions that we didn't get to or any follow-up questions that anyone has, please feel free to reach out directly to us, and we'll get back to you and be happy to schedule either a follow-up call or reply to any emails or requests that you have for additional information. We thank you very much for your participation and your time today, and wish you the best during the rest of the day. Thank you.
This concludes the meeting. You may disconnect. Thank you for participating, and have a pleasant day.